If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

The point is that the author's point is retarded, and probably indicative of someone that has never published a paper in a remotely-decent scientific journal before. Even in social sciences there's an expectation of some statistical analysis of data, some formation of a testable model, etc. As Dak said, the issue wasn't the forgery of data, it was the fact that these papers were 90% conjecture based on 10% data.

I don't know what you mean by "objectionable" vs "non-objectionable", but people perform hoaxes against journals in the hard sciences as well. The controversy of such hoaxes isn't just forgery of data, it's primarily that the arguments themselves are bullshit and get accepted either because the reviewer dogmatically believes it to be true, or because the reviewer cannot understand the paper.

I'm unaware of hoaxes pulled against hard science journals. I'd like to read about them. I don't doubt someone has tried. Part of the author's point, however, is that those hoaxes don't get the kind of publicity that the Areo and Sokal hoaxes do. The reason they get such publicity is that they appeal to a political motivation among even non-academics who simply despise anything remotely gender-related. They claim to be apolitical, but their work is making a splash precisely because it is political. It's exploding on places like reddit and 4chan, while academics are mostly rolling their eyes.

I'm not trying to shrug the episode off. The Areo authors really did manage to publish some outlandish stuff, and it's worth pausing over the fact that four out of sixteen papers with no data collection got published.

My primary critique of the hoax, which I didn't have time to go into last night, has to do with its methodology--which the authors describe as "reflexive ethnography." This basically means immersing yourself into a culture or community until you can effectively communicate in its discourse, i.e. you figure out what the buzzwords are and how to put certain ideas together. In other words, you can pass yourself off as an insider.

The problem with this is that it's basically the same premise as a computer in a Turing test. A computer might convincingly imitate human language/behavior, but that doesn't mean computer scientists are convinced that it understands what it's saying. John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment basically suggests that a computer might communicate appropriately and effectively without having any knowledge of the semantic content of its language.

This raises a problem for the Areo authors claiming to "know they've made things up." If they don't truly understand the content of the things they've said, then they can't actually know what the meaningful effect of their "intentionally broken" arguments are. Even hard sciences like theoretical physics and abstract mathematics rely on innovative recombinations that surprise readers. Good arguments should simultaneously make sense and surprise us. If they didn't surprise us, then there would be no need to make the argument. So all arguments involve some element of creativity.

Admittedly, the Areo authors managed to publish some, ahem, excessively creative pieces. But I don't think they've actually proven, or even suggested, that the journals in which they've published are awash in such arguments. Rather, they've demonstrated the degree to which editors/readers are willing to bend to allow creative arguments. In some cases, it may be too far; but I'm willing to bet the majority of arguments accepted in these journals don't fall into this outlier category (I don't read any of them, so I don't know).

 

[Dak]

Additionally, there's an operating flaw in their methodology that equates mimicry with comprehension, but I'm tired and don't have time to go into it now. Long story short, it's questionable whether they actually "know" they've created faulty arguments if all they're doing is imitating a discourse.

Are they creating faulty arguments? We can only assume no. It's hard to create a faulty argument in "disciplines" where the discourse isn't even wrong. We can even make the assumption that they were engaging in mimicry, but this just makes it more amusing.

I'm not trying to shrug the episode off. The Areo authors really did manage to publish some outlandish stuff, and it's worth pausing over the fact that four out of sixteen papers with no data collection got published.

The data is, in my estimation, the only funny part of the whole thing. If they merely recombined a lot of the jargon together and had it accepted that would simply be Sokal all over again. Just showing that these fields aren't any better twenty some years on. Instead, they add in data to fields that, depending on the academic, reject data in general as irrelevant anyway. These are pretend disciplines who were likely paradoxically giddy that through these articles they were "sciencing".

My primary critique of the hoax, which I didn't have time to go into last night, has to do with its methodology--which the authors describe as "reflexive ethnography." This basically means immersing yourself into a culture or community until you can effectively communicate in its discourse, i.e. you figure out what the buzzwords are and how to put certain ideas together. In other words, you can pass yourself off as an insider.

The problem with this is that it's basically the same premise as a computer in a Turing test. A computer might convincingly imitate human language/behavior, but that doesn't mean computer scientists are convinced that it understands what it's saying. John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment basically suggests that a computer might communicate appropriately and effectively without having any knowledge of the semantic content of its language.

This raises a problem for the Areo authors claiming to "know they've made things up." If they don't truly understand the content of the things they've said, then they can't actually know what the meaningful effect of their "intentionally broken" arguments are. Even hard sciences like theoretical physics and abstract mathematics rely on innovative recombinations that surprise readers. Good arguments should simultaneously make sense and surprise us. If they didn't surprise us, then there would be no need to make the argument. So all arguments involve some element of creativity.

Admittedly, the Areo authors managed to publish some, ahem, excessively creative pieces. But I don't think they've actually proven, or even suggested, that the journals in which they've published are awash in such arguments. Rather, they've demonstrated the degree to which editors/readers are willing to bend to allow creative arguments. In some cases, it may be too far; but I'm willing to bet the majority of arguments accepted in these journals don't fall into this outlier category (I don't read any of them, so I don't know).

There is absolutely no comparison between hard sciences and grievance studies. Novel arguments in hard sciences lead to concrete products or to nothing. Novel arguments in grievance studies are just adding more and more words to the same basic scaffolding provided by Nietzsche and Marx, and substituting out the specific "oppressors" and the "victims" as needed, with no concrete connection required nor indeed available. It's purely conspiracy theorizing, but of the worst sort. This is the reason Mein Kampf was workable into this framework. At least Jews, and particularly Jewish bankers, were a concrete target for Hitler. "The patriarchy" is completely abstract: it's not even attached to men specifically. Just anything a "feminist" doesn't like is "patriarchy". Cite Judith Butler and now we're academicing!

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, a lot to talk about. I don't have the luxury of time, so I'm not sure how often I'll be able to respond. This is all for now:

Are they creating faulty arguments? We can only assume no. It's hard to create a faulty argument in "disciplines" where the discourse isn't even wrong. We can even make the assumption that they were engaging in mimicry, but this just makes it more amusing.

Actually, it does, but not for the reason you think. It's because if their methodology is mimicry then it reinforces a key insight common to both Turing machines and gender performativity: i.e. that all communication is mimicry. The authors of this study don't actually know anything--or if they do, that knowledge doesn't make a difference.

The data is, in my estimation, the only funny part of the whole thing. If they merely recombined a lot of the jargon together and had it accepted that would simply be Sokal all over again. Just showing that these fields aren't any better twenty some years on. Instead, they add in data to fields that, depending on the academic, reject data in general as irrelevant anyway. These are pretend disciplines who were likely paradoxically giddy that through these articles they were "sciencing".

In that case, the exercise sounds not merely flawed but baroque. It contains distractions that actually clutter the central point, which is (presumably) that their arguments are absurd.

If the data is irrelevant--or better, hypothetically speaking, if the data existed--and the arguments are still sound based on the evidence at hand and the discourses in which they occur, then by what do we judge their absurdity? It seems to me that all we have to go by is a kind of... value judgment (*gasp*).

There is absolutely no comparison between hard sciences and grievance studies. Novel arguments in hard sciences lead to concrete products or to nothing.

I don't know what you mean by concrete objects, but it sounds presumptuous. Evolutionary theory hasn't produced any "concrete products" that I'm aware of; it simply provided a means of describing species development over time. That subsequent discoveries in genetics support evolution doesn't mean that evolutionary theory produced these discoveries; and furthermore, genetics is yet another theory. It's not as though science is working toward some all-explaining mechanism. It's theories all the way down (or up... not sure). Provided evolutionary theory is, in fact, true, it need not yield some yet-secret mechanism that we haven't discovered. It's not an ontology for species development, just like structuralism wasn't an ontology for what texts are; both are simply ways of describing the world based on evidence.

It's also worth pointing out that of the "grievance studies" disciplines these authors target, only one--gender and women's studies--have actual programs in many universities. The others--sexuality studies, fat studies, even feminist studies--don't actually have departments on all (or in some cases any) campuses. For the most part, they only vaguely describe theoretical discourses from which humanities scholars draw. In this respect, the target of the Areo piece is also admittedly vague, and really discernible only to those who already lump a lot of these disciplines together.

Novel arguments in grievance studies are just adding more and more words to the same basic scaffolding provided by Nietzsche and Marx, and substituting out the specific "oppressors" and the "victims" as needed, with no concrete connection required nor indeed available. It's purely conspiracy theorizing, but of the worst sort. This is the reason Mein Kampf was workable into this framework. At least Jews, and particularly Jewish bankers, were a concrete target for Hitler. "The patriarchy" is completely abstract: it's not even attached to men specifically. Just anything a "feminist" doesn't like is "patriarchy". Cite Judith Butler and now we're academicing!

This sounds less rational than antagonistic.

The problem here is that this doesn't boil down to logic and facts, much to some people's chagrin, but to what kind of research and analysis you find valuable. I think there's value in pursuing cultural contextualizing and historicizing, and that means that even things like "big data" warrant attention as potential objects of critique.

That doesn't mean that data is worthless, directionless, or even harmful necessarily. It just means that data is a tool. It's composed and designed with ends in mind. It doesn't just present itself. Data appears to those who look for it. It qualifies a perspective.

 

[Dak]

Actually, it does, but not for the reason you think. It's because if their methodology is mimicry then it reinforces a key insight common to both Turing machines and gender performativity: i.e. that all communication is mimicry. The authors of this study don't actually know anything--or if they do, that knowledge doesn't make a difference.

If all communication is mimicry then no one knows anything. It doesn't dig one out of the hole, and leaves one with nowhere to go. Again, just slapping words on scaffolding like so much paper mache. The core is hollow and it's dead.

In that case, the exercise sounds not merely flawed but baroque. It contains distractions that actually clutter the central point, which is (presumably) that their arguments are absurd.

If the data is irrelevant--or better, hypothetically speaking, if the data existed--and the arguments are still sound based on the evidence at hand and the discourses in which they occur, then by what do we judge their absurdity? It seems to me that all we have to go by is a kind of... value judgment (*gasp*).

But we are talking about discourses which, at some junctures, explicitly eschew logic even when they don't obfuscate and obscure meaning. Then we have first principles that are again, cut from conspiracy theory cloth. Where is there soundness? It's just buzzwords and some data about observing people doing stuff. "Men observed sitting with legs not tightly pressed together......PATRIARCHY CONFIRMED!". Academicing.

I don't know what you mean by concrete objects, but it sounds presumptuous. Evolutionary theory hasn't produced any "concrete products" that I'm aware of; it simply provided a means of describing species development over time. That subsequent discoveries in genetics support evolution doesn't mean that evolutionary theory produced these discoveries; and furthermore, genetics is yet another theory. It's not as though science is working toward some all-explaining mechanism. It's theories all the way down (or up... not sure). Provided evolutionary theory is, in fact, true, it need not yield some yet-secret mechanism that we haven't discovered. It's not an ontology for species development, just like structuralism wasn't an ontology for what texts are; both are simply ways of describing the world based on evidence.

Not being in the hard sciences I could be wrong about this, but doesn't evolutionary theory provide useful and relatively consistent predictions which assist in things like finding and identifying fossils and new species, as well as working together with other discoveries (like genetics) to explain biological changes across time? It hasn't given us the internet of course, but it's got some concrete utility.

Grievance studies give us concrete behaviors like screaming meltdowns in the streets and generally justifications for BPD and APD cognitions and behaviors, but it's not quite a unique product, and where's the positive outcomes? It attracts and multiplies the unhappy and broken. And doesn't give us any trinkets in the process either.

The problem here is that this doesn't boil down to logic and facts, much to some people's chagrin, but to what kind of research and analysis you find valuable. I think there's value in pursuing cultural contextualizing and historicizing, and that means that even things like "big data" warrant attention as potential objects of critique.

That doesn't mean that data is worthless, directionless, or even harmful necessarily. It just means that data is a tool. It's composed and designed with ends in mind. It doesn't just present itself. Data appears to those who look for it. It qualifies a perspective.

Data indeed supports a perspective, and everything isn't logic. But we're talking about disciplines which generally eschew data and logic. What's left? Conspiracy theories, psychiatric medications, and riots.

 

[Einherjar86]

If all communication is mimicry then no one knows anything. It doesn't dig one out of the hole, and leaves one with nowhere to go. Again, just slapping words on scaffolding like so much paper mache. The core is hollow and it's dead.

It might be, or it might not be. That's beside the point.

The construction and expansion of knowledge has little to do with what individual minds know.

But we are talking about discourses which, at some junctures, explicitly eschew logic even when they don't obfuscate and obscure meaning. Then we have first principles that are again, cut from conspiracy theory cloth. Where is there soundness? It's just buzzwords and some data about observing people doing stuff. "Men observed sitting with legs not tightly pressed together......PATRIARCHY CONFIRMED!". Academicing.

Logic isn't pre-discursive, meaning it's a valid target of discourse. To employ logic, we have to agree on a ground from which to proceed. That ground is always subject to critique.

Not being in the hard sciences I could be wrong about this, but doesn't evolutionary theory provide useful and relatively consistent predictions which assist in things like finding and identifying fossils and new species, as well as working together with other discoveries (like genetics) to explain biological changes across time? It hasn't given us the internet of course, but it's got some concrete utility.

It sounds like what you're saying is that evolutionary theory produces findings that reaffirm evolutionary theory (i.e. biological changes across time).

Grievance studies give us concrete behaviors like screaming meltdowns in the streets and generally justifications for BPD and APD cognitions and behaviors, but it's not quite a unique product, and where's the positive outcomes? It attracts and multiplies the unhappy and broken. And doesn't give us any trinkets in the process either.

You're being pernicious, and I'm trying to avoid this degrading into a shouting match.

You see meltdowns in the streets and think that "grievance studies" have somehow contributed to the unhappiness in the world. I'd say that they've given those who were already unhappy a vocabulary through which to cognize their unhappiness. And from there, it's a matter of trying to make change through social and political discourse. Screaming in the streets isn't the best example, but that's a common example. It's just the example you always hear about.

Put another way, this hoax confirms what you already believed about these discourses, and so you ignore the glaring omissions. It attempts to dismiss whole fields (and then a whole philosophical paradigm) with a handful of singularities that don't even meet the evidentiary standards of a representative anecdote. It's the reduction of entire fields to a few embarrassing oversights.

Data indeed supports a perspective, and everything isn't logic. But we're talking about disciplines which generally eschew data and logic. What's left? Conspiracy theories, psychiatric medications, and riots.

You just said everything isn't logic and then implied that nothing other than logic constitutes valid argumentation. But there are other valid forms of argument; and those are what's left.

 

[Dak]

It might be, or it might not be. That's beside the point.

The construction and expansion of knowledge has little to do with what individual minds know.

Logic isn't pre-discursive, meaning it's a valid target of discourse. To employ logic, we have to agree on a ground from which to proceed. That ground is always subject to critique.

We do have to agree on the ground from which to proceed, but if logic, at this point, is a "target" of discourse, there is no discourse. There are just ravings. We can even have shared first principles and then any discourse just looks like so much spilled water.

It sounds like what you're saying is that evolutionary theory produces findings that reaffirm evolutionary theory (i.e. biological changes across time).

So we don't find changes? Or are you saying there are other theories which explain changes?

You're being pernicious, and I'm trying to avoid this degrading into a shouting match.

You see meltdowns in the streets and think that "grievance studies" have somehow contributed to the unhappiness in the world. I'd say that they've given those who were already unhappy a vocabulary through which to cognize their unhappiness. And from there, it's a matter of trying to make change through social and political discourse. Screaming in the streets isn't the best example, but that's a common example. It's just the example you always hear about.

Put another way, this hoax confirms what you already believed about these discourses, and so you ignore the glaring omissions. It attempts to dismiss whole fields (and then a whole philosophical paradigm) with a handful of singularities that don't even meet the evidentiary standards of a representative anecdote. It's the reduction of entire fields to a few embarrassing oversights.

I'll agree it gives a vocabulary, but not a helpful one either on an individual or societal level. I do dismiss these/this "philosophical paradigms". They might have a point or two (or more, who knows?), but we can't know because they refuse to be baptized by the fire of critical analysis (which, of course, is why you find "critical" and "analysis" within the names of related domains). You contend the Sokal Squared papers are a few embarrassing oversights. I agree. It's only a few studies, they are embarrassing, and the "sight" is bad. That's what doing nothing but kicking up the proverbial dust does. It blocks vision. And it's systemic.

You just said everything isn't logic and then implied that nothing other than logic constitutes valid argumentation. But there are other valid forms of argument; and those are what's left.

Everything isn't logic. Not everything is argumentation. Not all argumentation is logical. That doesn't mean that argumentation outside of a logical format is valid. Of course, you can question the utility? of "validity" but then you're outside of (verbal) discourse and left with war. War based on vapid conspiracy theories.

 

[Einherjar86]

We do have to agree on the ground from which to proceed, but if logic, at this point, is a "target" of discourse, there is no discourse. There are just ravings. We can even have shared first principles and then any discourse just looks like so much spilled water.

Simply incorrect. Discourse can involve speculation, extrapolation, and analogical reasoning. All of these are valid methods of discourse.

So we don't find changes? Or are you saying there are other theories which explain changes?

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not saying there are other theories (I mean, there could be); but evolutionary theory hasn't produced new fossils or biological changes. Those fossils and/or biological changes were/are already there. All evolutionary theory provides is the explanation. So again, I'm not sure what you mean.

I'll agree it gives a vocabulary, but not a helpful one either on an individual or societal level. I do dismiss these/this "philosophical paradigms". They might have a point or two (or more, who knows?), but we can't know because they refuse to be baptized by the fire of critical analysis (which, of course, is why you find "critical" and "analysis" within the names of related domains). You contend the Sokal Squared papers are a few embarrassing oversights. I agree. It's only a few studies, they are embarrassing, and the "sight" is bad. That's what doing nothing but kicking up the proverbial dust does. It blocks vision. And it's systemic.

I still don't follow. Now you're saying the Areo hoax is itself a grievance study? If grievance studies are invalid, then how is the hoax itself valid?

From another perspective, if it revealed only a few embarrassing examples, then the implication is that most articles published in critical journals aren't embarrassing. They're not "kicking up the proverbial dust." They're dedicated studies of contemporary culture. I think it's that very premise that you have a problem with.

Everything isn't logic. Not everything is argumentation. Not all argumentation is logical. That doesn't mean that argumentation outside of a logical format is valid.

Yes, it does. As I already said above.

 

[CiG]

The next gen of journos lmao.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

woman in Brazil attacked and carved up for anti-Bolsonaro shirt

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/n...-Swastika-Carved-Into-Skin-20181010-0022.html

 

[CiG]

I like how that article touches slightly on the crime itself and then just devolves into political propaganda. I want to find out more about the carving because that's just brutal as fuck.

Edit: most in the comments are calling to fake news too.

 

[CiG]

On second glance the carving looks self-inflicted as fuck. My best mate IRL is a self-cutter and whenever he carves something into his arm or whatever there's usually faint scratches beneath the most obvious wound because, since you're doing it to yourself, you don't go hard right away. Look at the wrong-way-around Swastika, there are soft scratches beneath it.



Why would a violent mob with a knife go easy at first and then leave a fairly mundane wound? Surely they'd just carve it the first go with some strength behind it? I could be talking out of my ass and maybe she's a genuine victim but it looks kinda like bullshit.

Edit: apparently it has been confirmed as a hoax but I can't read their language and can't be arsed to translate it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

 

[CiG]

I remember that one.

TFW you looked in a mirror while you were doing it and played ya self.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Edit: most in the comments are calling to fake news too.

i totally did nazi that coming.

 

[Dak]

Simply incorrect. Discourse can involve speculation, extrapolation, and analogical reasoning. All of these are valid methods of discourse.

Yes, it does. As I already said above.

One can logically speculate, extrapolate, and analogize. If one makes bizarre extrapolations or poor analogies from certain points, one will be called to defend it. I've analogized the comparison between grievance studies and conspiracy theories in a logical fashion (although not exhaustively so).

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not saying there are other theories (I mean, there could be); but evolutionary theory hasn't produced new fossils or biological changes. Those fossils and/or biological changes were/are already there. All evolutionary theory provides is the explanation. So again, I'm not sure what you mean.

It doesn't produce them in themselves, but it provides guidance of where to look to discover them, etc. if I don't have a theory of X, I will be forever stabbing blindly in the dark. To the degree to which a theory reduces things beneath mere chance, we can begin to evaluate it.

I still don't follow. Now you're saying the Areo hoax is itself a grievance study? If grievance studies are invalid, then how is the hoax itself valid?

From another perspective, if it revealed only a few embarrassing examples, then the implication is that most articles published in critical journals aren't embarrassing. They're not "kicking up the proverbial dust." They're dedicated studies of contemporary culture. I think it's that very premise that you have a problem with.

The hoaxes, taking part in grievance studies, aren't "valid". But they are to be understood as accurate representations of the fields of acceptance. In empirical disciplines, the embarrassment of bad studies is overwhelmingly in manufactured or manipulated data, not in the argued justification for the study. This is not the case for fields like "gender studies". While they likely suffer even worse issues in manufactured and/or manipulated data where data is collected (being neo-Nietzschean after all, with an abandonment of ethics as traditionally understood), the "arguments" don't even get off the ground. This is why these fields exist independently of established philosophy, psychology, sociology, biology, or economics departments, or they publish outside of established journals in these fields. Conspiracy theories and myths that enough people have accepted so as to become "accepted", at least in getting some federal dollars and a space on campus. What's the old saying about cults? It's not a cult if you have enough members? I think more highly of people who believe in Bigfoot. At least we generally don't have to worry about them going to the zoo and claiming to have seen 12 of them in the gorilla enclosure, much less claiming that Bigfoot(s?feets?) are ruining their lives in every imaginable way. Feminists imagine the patriarchy in the literal air they breath (eg pollution). Do they publish such claims in Philosophical Review? Do they publish such claims in Environmental Pollution? Not to my knowledge. They simply make up their own journals or publish in bullshit open access journals. Of course, they have to do this because they would get rejected. And why would they be rejected from other journals? Because of the patriarchy of course! Why can't we find Bigfoot? Because it doesn't want to be found!

 

[Einherjar86]

One can logically speculate, extrapolate, and analogize. If one makes bizarre extrapolations or poor analogies from certain points, one will be called to defend it. I've analogized the comparison between grievance studies and conspiracy theories in a logical fashion (although not exhaustively so).

Speculation and extrapolation both involve uncertainty. Strictly speaking, logic is the attempted exoricism of uncertainty (unless we're talking about probabilistic logic, which is highly theoretical). Even inductive logic attempts to reduce uncertainty. By contrast, speculation and extrapolation exploit uncertainty. They might appeal to logic, but can be effective without being wholly logical. Additionally, analogical reasoning isn't strictly logical reasoning; it's reasoning by analogy (or by metaphor, comparison, juxtaposition, etc.) which is a creative form of induction. It doesn't infer from a single set of conditions (as does syllogism), but transfers the form of those conditions onto another set of conditions.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm contrasting evolving definitions of logic with traditional predicate logic. Scientists are working to adapt logical principles with new information, but it's changing the shape of what "logic" actually is. For example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165011483800815

In the existing expert systems, uncertainty is dealt with through a combination of predicate logic and probability-based methods. A serious shortcoming of these methods is that they are not capable of coming to grips with the pervasive fuzziness of information in the knowledge base, and, as a result, are mostly ad hoc in nature. An alternative approach to the management of uncertainty which is suggested in this paper is based on the use of fuzzy logic, which is the logic underlying approximate or, equivalently, fuzzy reasoning. A feature of fuzzy logic which is of particular importance to the management of uncertainty in expert systems is that it provides a systematic framework for dealing with fuzzy quantifiers, e.g., most, many, few, not very many, almost all, infrequently, about 0.8, etc. In this way, fuzzy logic subsumes both predicate logic and probability theory, and makes it possible to deal with different types of uncertainty within a single conceptual framework.

It doesn't produce them in themselves, but it provides guidance of where to look to discover them, etc. if I don't have a theory of X, I will be forever stabbing blindly in the dark. To the degree to which a theory reduces things beneath mere chance, we can begin to evaluate it.

In other words, it provides scientists with tips for where to locate further evidence for confirming evolutionary theory.

I'm not trying to undermine evolutionary theory here, for what it's worth; but you're not revealing any "concrete objects" that evolutionary theory produces or reveals. Scientists simply discover more evidence for the legitimacy of evolutionary theory. That evidence doesn't do much else outside of affirming the theory.

Conspiracy theories and myths that enough people have accepted so as to become "accepted", at least in getting some federal dollars and a space on campus.

This is hilarious. You think the game is to figure out the right "myths" so as to secure funding? Look up the funding universities allocate for STEM and compare it with the women's and gender studies programs, then come back and keep comparing it to a conspiracy theory designed to earn dollar signs.

Feminists imagine the patriarchy in the literal air they breath (eg pollution). Do they publish such claims in Philosophical Review? Do they publish such claims in Environmental Pollution? Not to my knowledge. They simply make up their own journals or publish in bullshit open access journals. Of course, they have to do this because they would get rejected. And why would they be rejected from other journals? Because of the patriarchy of course! Why can't we find Bigfoot? Because it doesn't want to be found!

Do the people who publish in Environmental Pollution publish in Hypatia? I'm not sure what you're going on about. All fields "make up their own journals." For espousing logic so much you really don't present any in your posts. You're just lambasting fields you don't like.

 

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

Speculation and extrapolation both involve uncertainty. Strictly speaking, logic is the attempted exoricism of uncertainty (unless we're talking about probabilistic logic, which is highly theoretical). Even inductive logic attempts to reduce uncertainty. By contrast, speculation and extrapolation exploit uncertainty. They might appeal to logic, but can be effective without being wholly logical. Additionally, analogical reasoning isn't strictly logical reasoning; it's reasoning by analogy (or by metaphor, comparison, juxtaposition, etc.) which is a creative form of induction. It doesn't infer from a single set of conditions (as does syllogism), but transfers the form of those conditions onto another set of conditions.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm contrasting evolving definitions of logic with traditional predicate logic. Scientists are working to adapt logical principles with new information, but it's changing the shape of what "logic" actually is. For example:

I don't see an important difference here between "fuzzy logic" and probabilistic approaches (despite the author's assertion that there is a difference), unless there's some sort of structural coding issue for AI that needs some sort of input flexibility that doesn't correspond exactly to a probability estimate with a confidence interval (which is, in a manner of speaking, fuzzy). I may not being clear enough; we likely should be approaching everything in terms of probability (that's a probabilistic statement in itself). But what does this have to do with fields which reject logic and science? "We need a new inter-sectional logic" "A decolonialized science" "A queer mathematics". There's likely an inverse relation between knowledge of hard science fields and the placement of these types of buzzwords around them as qualifiers.

In other words, it provides scientists with tips for where to locate further evidence for confirming evolutionary theory.
I'm not trying to undermine evolutionary theory here, for what it's worth; but you're not revealing any "concrete objects" that evolutionary theory produces or reveals. Scientists simply discover more evidence for the legitimacy of evolutionary theory. That evidence doesn't do much else outside of affirming the theory.

The difference is that the theory could be disconfirmed. Can't ever disconfirm Bigfoot. Or Patriarchy. All evidence is evidence for, even the absence or ostensible counter-evidence.

This is hilarious. You think the game is to figure out the right "myths" so as to secure funding? Look up the funding universities allocate for STEM and compare it with the women's and gender studies programs, then come back and keep comparing it to a conspiracy theory designed to earn dollar signs.
Do the people who publish in Environmental Pollution publish in Hypatia? I'm not sure what you're going on about. All fields "make up their own journals." For espousing logic so much you really don't present any in your posts. You're just lambasting fields you don't like.

Obviously there's not as much funding. So what? Enough to keep enough employed with otherwise useless degrees to keep the sham going. Why would people who publish in Environmental Pollution need to publish in Hypatia? They aren't producing arguments, research, or claims that apply. On the other hand, those publishing in Hypatia make claims about the environment:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1997.tb00174.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01220.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/hypa.12064

From the last:

feminist analyses of climate change that underline the gendered, racialized, and colonial power politics at play in both how climate change is experienced and how responsibility should be attributed (for example, Alaimo 2009; Seager 2009; Cuomo 2011; Glazebrook 2011).

 

[The Ozzman]

View attachment 16465

1) Cut a hole in the pumpkin
2) Put yo junk in dat pumpkin

Who is that porn star fo real tho?

 

[Einherjar86]

we likely should be approaching everything in terms of probability (that's a probabilistic statement in itself). But what does this have to do with fields which reject logic and science? "We need a new inter-sectional logic" "A decolonialized science" "A queer mathematics". There's likely an inverse relation between knowledge of hard science fields and the placement of these types of buzzwords around them as qualifiers.

My point is that these fields don't reject logic and science. You've simply been (as far as I can tell) defining and/or presenting logic and science in a way that excludes these fields.

Studies that involve language (namely, humanistic studies such as English and history, but that also include studies on gender, race, etc.) operate according to a fundamental scientific principle: uncertainty. Niels Bohr used to say humans are "suspended in language," by which he meant that language is an observing apparatus much like instruments for measuring quantum phenomena are. This doesn't mean that language (or physics) are wholly illogical, but that logical reasoning can't entirely explain the way they work. Scientists know this, which is why you're seeing people at reddit and 4chan spewing over this hoax, but very few (if any) scientists up in arms about it.

Studies that point out forms of social inequality, disparity, or other discrepancies aren't always identifying logical things; they're simply pointing out cultural associations. The more an association is observed, probabilistically speaking, the more likely it is to have some entrenched cultural meaning that's worth questioning.

The difference is that the theory could be disconfirmed. Can't ever disconfirm Bigfoot. Or Patriarchy. All evidence is evidence for, even the absence or ostensible counter-evidence.

The patriarchy could also be disconfirmed. If scientists found a bunch of fossils out of place, it would (very likely) disconfirm evolution. But they haven't found any yet. Likewise, if historians uncovered a bunch of secret female U.S. presidents and business-owners (prior to the 1950s at least), that would be compelling evidence to disprove the patriarchy. But they haven't found any yet.

Furthermore, the mere presence of fossil evidence wouldn't disprove evolutionary theory. That's not how science works:

Also, this: https://aeon.co/essays/a-fetish-for-falsification-and-observation-holds-back-science

So Newtonian gravity was ultimately thrown out, but not merely in the face of data that threatened it. That wasn’t enough. It wasn’t until a viable alternative theory arrived, in the form of Einstein’s general relativity, that the scientific community entertained the notion that Newton might have missed a trick. But what if Einstein had never shown up, or had been incorrect? Could astronomers have found another way to account for the anomaly in Mercury’s motion? Certainly--they could have said that Vulcan was there after all, and was merely invisible to telescopes in some way.

This might sound somewhat far-fetched, but again, the history of science demonstrates that this kind of thing actually happens, and it sometimes works

The point is that relying on falsifiability as an absolute metric of scientific viability is counter-productive.

Obviously there's not as much funding. So what? Enough to keep enough employed with otherwise useless degrees to keep the sham going. Why would people who publish in Environmental Pollution need to publish in Hypatia? They aren't producing arguments, research, or claims that apply. On the other hand, those publishing in Hypatia make claims about the environment

This is a misleading contrast. The papers in Hypatia might be talking about scientific subjects, but they're not contributing to the scientific discourse surrounding those subjects. Likewise, papers in Environmental Pollution might talk about social subjects, like this paper for instance; but they're not contributing to the sociological discourse surrounding the "socioeconomic" factors they mention.

You're trying to craft a hierarchy based on assumed preferences of authors from the respective journals, but you've falsely (or at least questionably) diagnosed happenstance subjects as indicative of some alternative preference. The authors who submit to Hypatia wouldn't prefer to submit their essays to a science journal--and it's not because they fear they wouldn't be taken seriously. The editors of a science journal might very well take an argument from a gender theorist very seriously; but that's beside the point. It wouldn't be accepted because it's the wrong field. Likewise, a paper on astrophysics would probably be taken seriously by the editorial board at Hypatia; but they're not going to publish it because it's not the appropriate discourse.

I feel like this shouldn't need explaining and you should be able to recognize how much you're projecting. I also think you underestimate the amount of respect between colleagues in the sciences and humanities. They might not always agree, but it's not like humanities people can't get into some kind of elite club and so they form their own.

EDIT: this is a great response from someone who served as a reviewer for one of Areo's papers:

Academics of all ranks and disciplines live in fear of "Reviewer 2." This publishing trope refers to the dreaded anonymous peer reviewer who gratuitously disparages your paper, curtly dismisses it, or seems to have not read it at all. These fears are, to an extent, justified — such peer-review stories are not uncommon. As a graduate student, I have received "Reviewer 2"-type reviews. This past June, when I peer-reviewed a paper for the first time, I decided I would try to be different.

The paper at hand attempted to theorize masturbation as a form of violence. I told my wife and my adviser that I was reviewing a strange paper and remember sitting at my desk trying to figure out what to do with it. Strange is not — in and of itself — bad, and simply calling a paper strange is not a review. So I dug in, read the paper, and tried to decipher what was going on. The paper was bad, and I quickly decided on a rejection.

But how to approach writing the rejection? I looked at a rejection I had received. The reviewer had read my paper carefully, offered substantive and detailed critiques, and offered directions I might be able to take the paper. I remembered how much I liked that reviewer, and so decided to take the same approach. I critiqued the paper substantively, while offering potential avenues the authors might be able to pursue. I hoped that, despite the rejection, the author might benefit from the review.

In their article announcing the hoax, the writers used selected quotes from my review to argue that I supported this paper (despite recommending a rejection). This selective use of my comments seemed disingenuous. They were turning my attempt to help the authors of a rejected paper into an indictment of my field and the journal I reviewed for, even though we rejected the paper.

As the initial embarrassment and frustration of reviewing a hoax article has worn off, and through an outpouring of support on Twitter, I am still glad I chose not to be "Reviewer 2." It is impossible to know who is on the other end of blind peer review, and it is reasonable to assume the person has good intentions, even if the paper is mediocre or worse.

My first reviewing experience has been strange, and, if nothing else, I am moving on confident in my decision to be a critical yet constructive scholar.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753?cid=trend_right_a